GOVINDA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 23. 10. 1981 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Boudh, Berhampur, by which he dismissed the appeal (though modified the sentence) preferred by the petitioner against the order of his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') and sentence of rigonus imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisionment for three months, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Digapahandi.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that at about 8, 30 a. m. on 21. 4. 1978 the Food Inspector (P. W. 1) along with his Peon (P. W. 2) and a Sanitary Inspector (P. W. 3) visited the shop of the accused -petitioner in village Dabara where the petitioner was selling dal, spices, oil, etc. P.W.I disclosed his identity to the petitioner and inspected the food articles. He suspected the til oil and turmeric powder to be adulterated. So he purchased 375 grams of til oil and 450 grams of turmeric powder after paying the price. He divided each of the samples into three equal parts. Thereafter he kept each part in a clean and dry bottle and sealed and laballed the same. He asked some of the outsiders who were present there to be witnesses to the taking of samples etc., but they did not oblige and left the place. The samples of til pit and turmeric powder are. sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst found the samples to be adulterated. After receipt of the reports of the Public Analyst, prosecution was launched against the petitioner after complying with all formalities.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined three witnesses, P. W. 1 is the Food Inspector, P. W. 2 is his Peon and P. W. 3 is a Sanitary Inspector. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the petitioner was the owner of the shop and was selling the food articles which were kept for human consumption. Basing on the report of the Public Analyst that the samples were adulterated, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, was dismissed. However, the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 500.